Live data from Hacker News

Covid-19 breakthrough data

coronavirus.health.ny.gov

161–170 of 180 posts

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vaccine does two things; it reduces the chance of getting covid (not terribly effectively, for Omicron), and it reduces the average severity of cases (very effectively). "Breakthrough" is where it fails on the first point; failure would imply failing in _both_ cases. So you could possibly call the hospitalised cases failure (though even then, hospitalised vaccinated cases are on average less severe and less likel…

This depends on which definition of the vaccine you've chosen to adopt. As the product has not changed, only the manufacturers claims about it, the original definition is the most applicable in terms of its success or failure. What's misleading is to pretend that a product, sold as a "vaccine", sold as originally possessing many of the commonly-understood qualifiers of the use of that term, turns out in reality to po…

> It does not vaccinate against the disease. It does not vaccinate against being infected, harmed or killed by the disease

It reduces the chances of all three, and _dramatically_ reduces the chances of the last two. That's what vaccines do. Now, it's not a _great_ vaccine. There are a couple of magic bullet near-100% effective vaccines (for instance, only 3% of people with the MMR vaccine exposed to Measles will get Measles, and the smallpox vaccine is 95% effective), and there are some... less effective ones (assuming the right strain is targeted the flu vaccine is 40-60% effective at preventing infection, and reduces chances of death somewhat).

Hopefully better vaccines will become available, but for now we are where we are.

I mean, if you want to say "only things with >90% efficacy at preventing infection are vaccines"... okay, but what do you want to call all the vaccines that that excludes?

> These "vaccines" limited effects at reducing symptoms (the only remaining claim of late), do not even persist more than a week or two before beginning to wane to nothing

Eh? Where are you getting that? It does look like efficacy vs _infection_ diminishes rapidly (at least for two doses; insufficient evidence to say anything with great certainty about three doses so far), but a two-dose course from last year remains quite effective at preventing severe outcomes (though less effective than three doses).

> These are at best therapeutic drugs, not vaccines.

They're not therapeutic drugs at all; if you give the vaccine to someone who _currently has covid_ it won't help them (at least for that particular case of covid).

> That is, they are - broadly - failures.

In Ireland, we have about 95% adult vaccination. Most of our current ICU cases are unvaccinated under-65s; there are almost no vaccinated under-65s, and a small number of vaccinated over-65s (essentially all over-65s are vaccinated). I would not call this a _failure_, at all. If the ICU rate was the same in the general population as in the unvaccinated population, ICU capacity would be exhausted and people would die needlessly. Preventing that is a success.

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#163
post #9

I wonder how under-reported mild breakthrough cases are, due to self testing? I'm fully vaccinated and boosted, and I had what I suspect is Omicron about 10 days ago. I had a mild fever (approaching, but not reaching 101), a sore throat, sneezing and nasal congestion for 3-4 days, and I tested positive with an over the counter rapid test. Overall, it was like a very minor cold. My girlfriend also tested positive, and…

No post body was provided.

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#164

This report provides only age-adjusted numbers for vaccine effectiveness, but doesn't provide the model used to arrive at those numbers. If you look at the raw numbers, a different picture emerges: Chances of not being hospitalized with Covid: Unvaccinated: 99.9% Vaccinated: 99.99% Instead of providing a useful picture, the report compares two tiny numbers from each group and makes it a point to amplify the differenc…

That's a pretty big risk reduction in either case.

*relative risk reduction

We don't always care about relative risk reduction when the absolute risk is considered negligible. That is how we narrow focus and decide on what to spend our limited resources.

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#165
post #13

Does anyone have data on boosted death rate? It is really hard to find stats. “Vaccinated” is such a difficult term because it can encompass J&J from nearly a year ago for example. I see some breakdowns by vax supplier vs hospitalizations. Really would like to know how many people who have taken the booster have died from covid ideally with age data.

9x lower after 2 doses, 48x lower after booster according to Swiss statistics

https://twitter.com/redouad/status/1482991873190936576?s=21

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#166
post #79
post #48

Figure it’s relevant to this thread - Eric Topol (very credentialed medical researcher) does a pretty good overview & summary on how the vaccines are doing. https://erictopol.substack.com/p/were-very-lucky

If there were enough vaccines for everyone around the world to get the protection equivalent of 3-shots, and people took them, the pandemic would be over now This is a very bizarre assertion. Given that, the vaccinated spread covid, even with no symptoms, vaccination status does not limit spread. No amount of vaccinated people, will end the pandemic. Note that, to spread covid, it must be replicating in the body. The…

Maybe the author means covid becoming endemic instead of pandemic. See for example [1].

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59970281

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#167
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make much sense when looking at hospital data. The previously infected have the lowest hospital administrations vs even the vaccinated. If you are double vaxed and get infected it make zero sense to also get a booster unless you have an immune system issue.

A problem in the US is that many people who are politically right-leaning have been talking up natural immunity, which means the left-leaning people in charge of the local, state, and federal government where mandates are in place are unwilling to acknowledge natural immunity because they want to "own the cons" or something like that.

I think this is a mistake. By not acknowledging any natural immunity you give them tools to promote their anti Vax side because natural immunity does exist but maybe not for covid or depending on variant. Completely dismissing it is bad.

We have antivaxers in Switzerland as well, (quite a few saddly). However they have to dig very deep in the conspiracy bucket to fight their stance. Natural immunity is not talked about by the antivaxers but this doesn't mean the state gives natural immunity the same level of protection as vaccinated. If you have natural immunity you only get a 6 month certificate vs a year if you are double vaxxed. After that you need to take a anitbody test to get a 3 month extension or the booster shot. 2G+ is only valid if you had covid less than 4 months ago or the last shot.

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#168
post #9

I wonder how under-reported mild breakthrough cases are, due to self testing? I'm fully vaccinated and boosted, and I had what I suspect is Omicron about 10 days ago. I had a mild fever (approaching, but not reaching 101), a sore throat, sneezing and nasal congestion for 3-4 days, and I tested positive with an over the counter rapid test. Overall, it was like a very minor cold. My girlfriend also tested positive, and…

Here in Ontario Canada, the official government guidance is to not get tested if you have a mild case, due to a province-wide shortage of PCR tests [1]. Several friends have likely contracted COVID in the past 2 weeks (38-39 degree fever for 2-4 days with some coughing). Nothing serious enough to go to the hospital, but enough to take some time off work. All their cases are also unreported. [1]: https://globalnews.ca…

I have heard of people hoarding tests (I’m in the US) and regularly testing even with no symptoms, I honestly don’t understand that. I imagine these are the same types of folks who double mask when they are driving alone.

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#169
post #53
post #9

I wonder how under-reported mild breakthrough cases are, due to self testing? I'm fully vaccinated and boosted, and I had what I suspect is Omicron about 10 days ago. I had a mild fever (approaching, but not reaching 101), a sore throat, sneezing and nasal congestion for 3-4 days, and I tested positive with an over the counter rapid test. Overall, it was like a very minor cold. My girlfriend also tested positive, and…

> I wonder how under-reported mild breakthrough cases are, due to self testing? I bet Google & Facebook have enough metadata to measure it more accurately. I personally know of a dozen or so unreported positives (both tested positive and presumed positive), compared to two reported positives.

Is it really important to report mild cases determined by self testing? Frankly if I have the sniffles due to a cold, allergies, or even covid…I simply don’t see why the government needs to know. If I am not utilizing health care resources and self isolating, its nobody’s damned business but my own.

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For instance not considering past infection as equal to a vaccination The CDC has published data on this multiple times... Vaccination seems to be more protective than a past infection. A past infection is approximately equal to a single dose of a two-dose vaccine. e.g. CDC MMWR August 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm "These findings suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infec…

The linked study does NOT say that past infection is less protective than two vaccine doses. It says that getting vaccinated in addition to having a past infection provides additional protection. It says nothing about the protection provided by past infection only versus two doses without past infection. The CDC issued a false press release misrepresenting the conclusions of this study, at https://www.cdc.gov/media/r…

Just looked at the press release and there doesn’t appear to be any misrepresentation involved. The press release clearly talks about the benefits of vaccination even after a previous COVID-19 infection, just as the study did.

CDC credibility seems intact here, but online anti vaxxer credibility continues to decline…

Post reply on HN